M. Porcius Cato

Completely irrelevant--Roman history is simply a guilty pleasure of mine.

Ever hear of Aurelian? Or does your knowledge of Roman history begin and end with Caesar? I ask because you have yet to cite any facts about the generals you regard to be Caesar's inferior: you only mention facts about Caesar. But to support a comparative claim, you have to cite facts about both of the agents whom you are comparing, including facts regarding marginal utility (i.e., what did the agent ADD to the value of the larger unit.) Ugh... I give up. This thread has become all heat and no light.

Caesar was BORN to conquer? Did he inherit that from his ancestor Venus? Wow, have you been drinking Caesar's Kool-Aid or what?!?

Those sick f$%^s, whooo, whyyyy?!?! This reminds me of an old college professor I had; it's what happens when society convinces itself of the authority of a group of highly educated pristhood/professors who long divorced from the actions that catapulted thier order into exsistance, one day find thier actions unobstructed.... one day, thier thinking about theology, and they try to rationalize it, but since their so seperated from society and reality they soon lose tract of thier purpose and then suddenly find themselves sacrificing cute little puppies or making Aphrodite the goddess of the sewers. Unless your professor was actually sacrificing puppies, I'm not sure how your priests = professors equation is relevant here.

Well to each his own. It is his own opinion whether he likes Caeser or not but it's not a blind hatred, as much as I have seen he has always forwarded good and founded arguements against Caeser with good reaons. Though I must ask Cato, where/when did you first start be so anti-Caeser if I may ask? Was it a professor? A book? A lecture? etc. First, thank you for noticing that I don't just yell, "I hate Caesar" (unlike the "Hail Caesar!" posts), but I instead offer specific and detailed arguments. Second, the origin of my anti-Caesarism comes primarily from my love of the republican ideal as put forward by Polybius. It's an almost romantic version of the Roman constitution, but I think the reality was not as far from Polybius' ideal as was almost everything else. From there, Caesar's role in the Catilinarean conspiracy (as described by his friend Sallust) earned by disrespect; Caesar's destroying of the republic earned my anger; and Caesar's behavior after the civil war (particularly posing as a demigod) earned my total contempt and disgust. I wouldn't single out any particular book as putting me off Caesar, but Syme's Roman Revolution--which is mostly about Octavian--struck me as having strong implications for how we should evaluate Caesar as well. Finally, I confess to a certain reactionary impulse with respect to Caesar: if he weren't so widely celebrated, I'd not feel so compelled to set the record straight. And what about the relief Gallic force that attacked Caeser from behind? Logicial military protocol tells us that one cannot continue or maintain a seige with the enemy to your back yet Caeser acheived this. Now you can say he was irresponisble and make a very risky and gutsy call but it doesn't change the fact he succeded with such success given the circumstances. Giving all the credit to engineering qualities is not fair in my eyes. Of course you're right that all the credit can't go to engineering for exactly the reason you mention (although I'd point out that even the relief force had to deal with Roman engineering). My point is that Caesar's defeat of the relief force was competent but not really spectacular. Zama was reallly spectacular.

Hardly - or were the Cimbri/Tuetones not Iron Age warriors of the same ilk ? It took another GREAT General to defeat them. Good point. If technology and training alone prevented the Gallic tribes from being better warriors, the same should have applied to the Cimbri and Teutones, who were quite fearsome while being Iron Age warriors themselves. I'm sorry, I can't agree with you wasn't Alesia "superior deployment" ? I already know your answer. They were trapped behind a wall! By what definition is that deployment? Ultimately, the victory came from superior engineering plus competent (but not spectacular) on-field command. If you think otherwise, make your case--I'm all ears.

You want to offer some specifics?

Those mere Iron Age warriors had defeated many a Roman general before Caesar. Even forced some to go under the yoke.... Give me break--that was, what, 300 years earlier?!? I really don't think so: he didn't fight these battles simultaneously, nor were the numerical advantages matched by superior deployment. It's like Mussolini in Ethiopia or the British against the Zulu. No one would claim that this was a victory brought by leadership--it was a victory brought about by training and by technology that was generally was vastly superior. Had any competent general been in Gaul, the number of battles won would have been just as great.

It only lacks effectiveness for you because it differs from your own view. Kind of an obvious observation I suppose.... Not really--I finally got around to starting Addison's Cato, and I find its one-sidedness equally annoying. Maybe it will get better...

I don't recall Tacitus depicting Augustus as an evil tyrrant. Does anyone else? For Tacitus to do so would be to attack a god and he would certainly not have done that. He does "indirectly" criticize some of Augustus' decisions but depict as an evil tyrrant! The implication is very strongly in Annals 1.1-4. Tacitus calls Augustus a "despot", delegitimizes his rise to power, heaps withering scorn on Augustus' supporters, and Tacitus claims that after Augustus' revolution "there was not a vestige left of the old sound morality." If Augustus was left but morality was not, how else can one interpret that but as a claim that Augustus was immoral? Immoral despot, evil tyrant--pretty darned close, no?

I generally agree with Phil's assessment of the Masters of Rome series. McCullough clearly did a great deal of homework on Roman social life, and she did a good job of bringing Rome back to us. The value of this kind of work can be compared to how we understand flight: it's one thing to read an aeronautic manual or learn the laws of aerodynamics, but actually seeing an airplane fly makes it all simultaneously memorable and wonderful. Phil is also right that the effectiveness of her story is undercut by her adoration of Caesar and her hatred for his opponents. I'm just glad Phil said it first.

Not only did Caesar benefit from a long tradition of professionalism in the military, but the Gallic tribes he faced were merely iron age warriors. Caesar's opponents were vastly less powerful than Scipio's. Surely this makes a difference in judging their respective military abilities.

I've been invited to give a lecture at the University of St. Andrews, and I have a free day to do some sight-seeing. Is anyone (such as Pertinax?) familiar enough with the area to suggest some locations that I absolutely must not miss? I'll be flying into Edinburgh.

If Cato or some other "tyrannicide" had have killed Sulla before he had a chance to reform the treason laws, the dispute that lead to Caesars march on Rome may not have occured. Cato hung his whole "Gallic Wars were illegal" arguement on those very reforms of Sulla, Cato should have thanked the dictator. Without those laws, the legality would probably not have been questioned by him. Which is why it's a good idea not to let 9-year-olds decide political matters.

Because I'm sure you have an objective metric by which to measure their literary talents, right? Please share it with us so that we might all learn from your superior esthetic insights! It was brown-nosing, and it wasn't even very original brown-nosing. Personally, I sort of liked it in spite of it's vapid references to his contemporaries, but it wasn't as good as Lucretius. This is completely absurd. By this logic, a cookbook is bashing Augustus because NO pages are devoted to politics. Silly.

Cato's dad was dead before Sulla assumed power, and Cato was far too young to have much of an opinion. Plutarch reports that Cato's tutor introduced a very young Cato to Sulla, and when Cato saw how afraid everyone was of Sulla, Cato asked why hadn't been given a sword to liberate his country. For the lovers of dictatorship, this will be unbelievable, but that's a good thing because they never see the tyrannicide's sword coming until it is too late.

Yes, I realize the senate did not pass laws. I thought I was careful not to imply otherwise, for example, by using more generic terms such as "legislators", but if I slipped someplace--thanks for the correction. I don't think it changes the substance of my post--which is that many of the reforms that were needed were passed and that the republican ruling class was not resistant to change as has been commonly alleged (e.g., by Sallust and by previous posters). In support of this claim, I cited about a dozen laws sampled from the major categories of reform that had been mentioned in this thread. I would like you to clarify this statement for the record please. The use of the word Tyrant. Do you mean this in the modern connotation or the ancient greek word for sole ruler? The latter as my primary meaning, but I fully intended the modern connotation (if not denotation). Clodius, I'd warmly invite you to read my original post. I said exactly the same thing--the 'optimates' and 'populares' were "party-like" but NOT real political parties in the modern sense. The latter, I said, would be able to pass a wide-ranging political agenda without a strong-man, and while the 'amicita' or 'factiones' (as they were generally called) seemed to be evolving in the direction of a modern political party, they weren't there yet. True, he was a power grabber. But there again, he was a champion of that body of morons your namesake championed. Bathed in blood? Nah. You've fallen into the trap ancient disinfomation. Sulla was no more bathed in blood than was the senate during the Gracchan killings. Look up the numbers, they're actually quite small when you consider that Rome was at this time a city of perhaps 750,000. Sulla was guilty of nothing more than not reigning in his lieutenants and letting the system of proscriptions be abused. Something the emperor Tiberius would be later condemned for (Sejanus). Couldn't resist a swipe at the senatorial families could you? I'd say your characterization of the senate is as much a product of ancient misinformation as my characterization of Sulla. Being a dictator, Sulla's failure to reign in his lieutenants (Pompey included), makes him complicit. And I'd lay the same charge at Tiberius' doorstep for the same reason.

Thanks Primus--that was useful information. Again, look forward to learning more about Sulla's career than I could learn from Plutarch, who seems to present as much as he can, as honestly as possible, but without a modern sensibility that's difficult to pin down. Empiricism I think it is.

Servility and authority-worship are timeless. Yes, I agree--he was the father of his country, but a good father--one who lets his children grow up to become self-governing.

But where did the monasteries start???? How were they distributed throughout the empire? Were there monasteries prior to Christianity?

I'm a fan of Orwell too! BTW, I love your contrast between "ritualised living" and "active citizenship". The former certainly has the form of slavery (albeit with an alternative the slave never had)--and that servile form of living was embraced by stoicism and is the perfect description for the life of the slave and emperor. Off-Rome but on-topic, didn't Louis XIV develop and enforce a schedule for the "perfect day" at Versailles? As I recall, the effect of this inflexible and non-adpative schedule helped to keep French monarchs utterly disconnected from reality.

The repetition is necessary, as we have new people who haven't yet heard a case against Caesar. The passion is not really so much against Caesar as it is for republicanism and against servility.

Of course Caesar did something right. He just wasn't Rome's greatest figure: he is over-hyped. Tyrannicide--yes, as an act of war.

I look forward to reading it. I've always had the sense that Sulla might be the victim of Caesarian propaganda. Not to excuse Sulla, but he did put out a hit on Caesar and Caesar had a great PR machine (good enough to have him declared a god, by Jove!)

I didn't take Newspeak as a serious philosophical contribution so much as the propaganda of Big Brother, and I didn't quite understand your gloss of it either. If you mean that emperors are virtually slaves to the many and thus share with actual slaves an understanding of duty and self-denial, OK.